The following chapter has been contributed by the authors with the permission
of the publishers. The views expressed in this chapter do not necessarily
reflect the views of the members of the CAIN Project. The CAIN Project
would welcome other material which meets our guidelines
for contributions.

This chapter is from the book:

A Worthwhile Venture?
Practically Investigating in Equity,
Diversity and Independence in Northern Ireland

by Karin Eyben, Duncan Morrow and Derick Wilson
Published by The Future Ways Programme,
School of Social and Community Sciences/School
of History, Philosophy and Politics,
University of Ulster, 1997.
ISBN 1 85923 082 2 PPR
£5.00 Paperback 261pp

Orders to:The Future Ways Programme
School of Social and Community Sciences
Faculty of Social and Health Sciences and Education
University of Ulster
Coleraine

This material is copyright Karin Eyben, Duncan Morrow and Derick
Wilson, 1997, and is included on the CAIN site by permission of the University
of Ulster. You may not edit, adapt, or redistribute changed versions of
this for other than your personal use without the express written permission
of the publishers. Redistribution for commercial purposes is not permitted.

Your corn is ripe today; mine will be so tomorrow. 'Tis profitablefor
us both, that I shou'd labour with you today, and that you shou'd aid me
tomorrow. I have no kindness for you, and know you have as little for me.
I will not, therefore, take any pains upon your account; and should I labour
with you upon my account, in expectations of a return, I know I shou'd
be disappointed, and that I shou'd in vain depend upon your gratitude.
Here then I leave you to labour alone; You treat me in the same manner
The seasons change; and both of us lose our harvests for want of mutual
confidence and security.

[David Hume]

KARIN EYBEN
DUNCAN MORROW
DERICK WILSON

Future Ways
School of Social & Community Sciences/School of History, Philosophy
and Politics
University of Ulster

ISBN 1 85923 082 2

Towards Equity, Diversity and Interdependence

IntroductionSerious Community Relations in Northern Ireland is a search for practical
ways for people of different identities, backgrounds and goals to live
and work with one another with mutual respect. Coping with the real tensions
around political divisions in Northern Ireland has always been difficult,
and there is clearly no single blueprint of what this means in practice.
Nevertheless, the real and expensive effects of the division and the tensions
associated with it across many areas of life are undeniable. Better working
relations therefore constitute one of the most important political and
social tasks.

If Northern Ireland is to find a democratic future, then the basis of
community relations must also accord with basic democratic values. In our
study of community relations training, three particular themes became central
to our thinking. Community relations came to be about the search for the
appropriate balance between three key democratic goals viewed together:
Equity, Diversity and Interdependence.

Previous research has indicated the need for a more sustained and strategic
approach to community relations training for those whose work and lives
brings them into immediate contact with community divisions. In the early
years, community relations has involved youth workers, community workers,
teachers and community relations officers in particular. Over the last
ten years, there has been some evidence that other sectors, such as business
management, law and order, health and social services, local action teams,
and local policy makers have also begun to come into direct contact with
the problems involved.

The growth of greater institutional interest in some of these themes
has nevertheless highlighted the absence of any coherent strategy. Community
Relations needs to become embedded in public and private institutions,
encouraging and supporting change in organisational structure and practice.
It is increasingly clear that the ad hoc approach of the early years is
problematic in the institutional sphere where action needs to be taken
on a number of different levels: policy, structure and procedures, and
training, within the equity, diversity, and interdependence framework.
Translating community relations into new structures and procedures is central
to any possibility of meeting the core objectives of all attempts at policy-making
and training: the development of diverse and equitable relationships in
Northern Ireland and, ultimately, between Northern Ireland and its neighbours.

Given the greater interest in strategy, and the increasing number of
people and sectors involved, it seemed an appropriate time to identify
exactly how different groups and organisations were explicitly addressing
equity, diversity and interdependence, both internally and in their relationships
with the wider community This study is the result.

Karin Eyben
Duncan Morrow
Derick Wilson

University of Ulster, May 1997,

6. CONCLUSION

Equity, Diversity and Interdependence

Since the mid 1980s the British government has developed a five stranded
approach to policy making in Northern Ireland: reduction of inequalities;
promotion of greater cross-community contact; encouraging pluralism; search
for political accommodation; dealing with violence.[1] The first
three strands directly mirror the three themes of this report and are directed
to producing important changes in the other two strands, and vice versa.

However, equity, diversity and interdependence have often been pursued
separately rather than as part of a coherent strategy, resulting in different
agencies, pieces of legislation, and funding bodies dealing with individual
strands with no effective co-ordinating body. For example, jobskills training
for the unemployed (equity) seldom acknowledges the central importance
of developing relationships (interdependence) in the workplace with different
identity groups (diversity). Cultural projects (diversity) might avoid
looking at the conflictual nature of relationships (interdependence) which
underpin various cultural traditions. Mutual Understanding training (interdependence)
might not explore the institutional or structural nature of discrimination
and exploitation in this society (equity).

No one group or organisation can deal with everything. However, equity
in Northern Ireland cannot exist without accepting that there are different
identity groups with different needs, and both cannot exist in a vacuum,away from the fact that people's lives are based on relationships:
at work, in the family, with civil servants, with politicians, with paramilitaries,
with the clergy, with the police, with their neighbours and so on. This
reality demands a more co-ordinated approach at an institutional and organisational
level to policy making, the development of new procedures and structures
as well as the availability of appropriate training for support and development.

Equity

Equity, according to the Collins English Dictionary, is the quality
of being impartial,or reasonable fairness. in law and jurisprudence,
it is a branch founded onprinciples of natural justice and fair
conduct. In liberal democracies, the commitment to equity is therefore
a commitment to the impartial and fair allocation of resources and entitlements
- including political power - according to expected notions of fairness
and without discrimination on the basis of external factors. It encompasses
the process of redressing any identified undesirable or inequitable balance.

Fairness and equality are not always the same, but the concept of impartiality
ensures that equality of treatment is central to all notions of equity
Equity is about recognizing partisan differentials that exist across the
board and doing something about them. Equality of treatment alone is about
ensuring that everyone is treated equally, but it does not necessarily
address existing differentials.

It has been well documented that on many major social and economic
indicators, Catholics are worse off than Protestants.[2]These include unemployment figures, families dependent on social security,
school leaving qualifications, home ownership, levels of poverty, and ill
health. Therefore any equity measures developed in Northern Ireland are
likely to alter present relationships between the Protestant and Catholic
communities.

The Government of Ireland Act 1920, which in practice only applied to
Northern Ireland, addressed the issue of equity and discrimination in two
sections. Section Five stated that the Northern Ireland Parliament could
not legislate so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow
any religion or prohibit or restrict the free exercisethereof,
or give a preference, privilege or advantage, or imposeany
disability or disadvantage on account of religiousbelief or religious
or ecclesiastical status. In Section Eight (6), the Act forbade preferences
anddisabilities on accountof religious belief when executive
power was exercised. [3] In addition, the Parliament also
had a forum where issues of discrimination could be addressed and a 'peace,
order, and good government' grant which gave Parliament almost total authority
in internal matters.

As Rose and Magill conclude, in their article on employment equality
in Northern Ireland in the SACHR Review (1996), these initiatives were
hardly ever put into practice. In part this was because the legislation
did not recognize the close connection between religious identity and political
identity. Therefore anything done on security grounds, to maintain the
state of Northern Ireland, would almost automatically be discriminatory
against a certain religious belief and therefore against the minority community[4].

It took thirty to forty years for civil rights movements to form and
demand the removal of discrimination within Northern Ireland. In the 1970s,
the British government removed power from the Northern Ireland Parliament
and began to address existing inequities within and between the communities.
The range of initiatives since then have included the Northern Ireland
Constitution Act (1973) which contained two anti-discriminatory measures;
the Van Straubenzee Report which led to the 1976 Fair Employment Act which
recognized the link between religious and political identities; the Anglo-lrish
Agreement which also identified social and economic discrimination., the
1989 Fair Employment Act; and more recently two policy initiatives: the
Targeting Social Need (TSN), introduced in 1991 as the third Public Expenditure
Priority, and the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT) (1994).

Differentials in housing, educational provision and the fair operation
of franchise were also all targeted by removing local democracy in 1972.
It is not our intention to review these various initiatives as this as
been extensively done elsewhere, including the 1996 SACHR Review of Employment
Equality. It is sufficient to note that especially in the realm of employment,
the equity legislation and initiatives have not managed to significantly
reduce the socio/economic differentials between Catholics and Protestants[5].
However, as Vani Borooah argues, expectations of change may be unrealistic
given the current orthodoxy of reducing state intervention in the private
sector, and the public sector intent on becoming more efficient'.[6]
Mainstreaming equity within the public sector and private sectors in this
climate is always going to be difficult unless it can be shown that in
the medium to long term the costs involved will be far outweighed by the
benefits.

Furthermore, unless the size of the cake is increased, 'equity' will
be perceived to be about the redistribution of resources from one community
to the other, either justly or unjustly, depending on which side of the
fence you sit. This fact not only influences central policy makers in their
desire not to upset the apple cart but also has a detrimental impact on
community relationships on the ground.

The history of equity in Northern Ireland is dominated by conflictual
relationships between a majority and a minority community. It is therefore
not a matter of simple causality in saying that once economic differentials
are decreased, community relations will improve or, alternatively, that
if communities understand one another better, or get on better, then jobs
will somehow proliferate. Equity affects interdependence and raises issues
of diversity This is not to say that they should all have equal priority
in every context, but that if the priority is an economic development project,
then the impact of such a project on communities relationships and diverse
identity groups must also be taken into account.

Interdependence

Communities in Northern Ireland have to face the permanent necessity
of having to deal with Another', whose existence is a threat to 'our side'.
After years of fear and violence, the impact of this threat is seen through
living in segregated areas, going to segregated schools, going to different
churches and social clubs, and celebrating different traditions.[7]
Interface areas are mainly centred around public places and the work place.
Attempts to support a constructive sense of pluralism, encouraging the
acknowledgement and development of interdependence between Catholics and
Protestants using a variety of different mechanism has been called 'community
relations' work.

At a literal level, the term 'community relations' entails a recognition
that relationships between people of different groups in part depend on
the relationships between the groups as a whole. Relationships across the
sectarian divide in Northern Ireland clearly fall into this category. The
term 'community relations' in the United Kingdom originated around the
early 1960s in Britain as a response to the rise of immigration and subsequent
changes in British society Initially, 'community relations' was more concerned
with integrating the newcomers as fast as possible into British culture.
Group differences were regarded as potential sources of racial conflicts.
However, 'Community relations' later developed into promoting equality
of treatment, human rights and in so doing highlighting the distinction
between different cultural and national groups.[8] This shift
reflects the delicate balance between the need for members of different
identity groups to agree to the laws of their country of residence and
be treated as equitably as any citizen of that nation, and yet at the same
time be allowed the space and freedom to retain their different identities
and have the right not be assimilated into the dominant culture. Experiences
have shown that both the assimilative and pluralist policies need to be
present m a society with a range of different identity groups; this is
especially true in a chronically divided society such as Northern Ireland.

Government policy in Northern Ireland has followed both these strategies,
though one tends to be more of a priority than the other at any given time.
The central issue is whether the different identity groups can live and
work together in a just relationship whilst being allowed to maintain their
own distinctiveness as long as they wish it. There is certainly a fear
from many Protestants that community relations work is an exercise in assimilating
them into a United Ireland; whilst on the other hand, community relations
work can be seen by Catholics as a means of strengthening the Union between
Northern Ireland and Britain. Because community relations in Northern Ireland
has focused on inter-personal and inter-group encounters, the Protestant
community has tended to feel it is confronted with its 'enemy'. Only when
such encounters involve meetings between the Catholic community and the
state, such as police officers, do Catholics feel threatened and angry
in the same way. As a result, there is currently more overt resistance
and fear to Community Relations from the Protestant community

In 1971, a Ministry of Community Relations and a Community Relations
Commission was established. The Ministry was responsible for:

advocating policies which would improve community relations;

administering the Social Needs Fund by directing resources to those
areas of social and economic deprivation;

financing the Commission.

The Commission, broadly modelled on the British Race Relations Board,
was tasked with:

supporting community relations focused projects;

encouraging educational programmes;

undertaking a number of research programmes.[9]

It has been well documented that the central focus of the Commission
was in initiating a community development strategy within communities in
order that they might eventually gain the confidence to 'reach out' to
the 'others'. This strategy was set out in the Commission's First Annual
Report.

Our initial consideration of the problem led us to the conclusion
that division in the community could not be considered in isolation from
other social problems such as relative deprivation and breakdown of community
structures. It seems too that the problems arising from division might
more profitably tackled obliquely in grappling with some of the underlying
social problems. We therefore agreed at an early stage to make our approach
through community development.[10]

The major problem with this approach was, and still is, that government
bodies and institutions were not part of this process: the focus of community
development is with the community 'out there' and not us 'in here' within
the major institutional structures. When community relations is tied to
community development then it can lead to a large number of people in other,
more powerful sectors ignoring the fact that they too are part of a deeply
contested society. Because street trouble happened between communities,
the solution was handed to those communities. The way in which 'communities'
interacted with the structure of the entire political, social and economic
framework went unquestioned and therefore no change was required of their
internal practices. This has internal policy, training and structural implications.
Institutions and those at levels of public responsibility are not 'above
all that' and the fault lines do not stop at the reception desk.

Two related problems emerged from defining community development / community
relations within the community and voluntary sectors. The first one was
that those who made policies and held the purse strings never became aware
of the changes they themselves needed to make.

The Community Relations Commission was established by government
to encourage the growth of understanding and tolerance at grass roots level,
whilst the government itself displayed ignorance and bigotry.[11]

The second problem was the growing fear from politicians, from all camps,
that the Commission's strategy was empowering community groups to by-pass
their elected representatives. The politicians and their related institutions
were not part of the process - although, how that would have been possible
is another debate; therefore they began to see the community sector and
therefore the Commission as a potential rival intent on undermining their
power base. The result was that on 3 April 1974, the Community Relations
Commission was disbanded." The official reason was that since there
was now a new Power Sharing Executive, the problem had been solved. Unofficially,
the demise of the Commission was due to a complicated power struggle both
within the Executive and between politicians and community representatives.

The mid 1970s to late 1980s was characterized by the parcelling out
of community relations responsibilities between the Department of Education
(DENI), local government, and community and voluntary organisations. Community
groups were the most active in community relations work with methods ranging
from focused community relations work to more contextual work where community
relations issues are integrated into other activities. Mari Fitzduff, in
her typology of community relations work, identifies a number of subject
areas such as mutual understanding, anti-sectarian, cultural traditions
within the more focused approach. She argues that some bridge must also
be built to make community relations accessible to those whose priorities
are not primarily community relations.[13] One of the main themes
of this report is the vital need to look at the relevance of various community
relations approaches, mainly developed in the community and voluntary sectors,
to groups and organisations whose prime focus is not community relations
but who live and operate in Northern Ireland.

Following a number of years of unstructured thinking on its Community
Relations strategy, the late 1980s saw a return of community relations
to the governments agenda. Two bodies were established: the Central Community
Relations Unit (CCRU) in 1987 and the Community Relations Council (CRC)
in 1990. CCRU forms part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and was
established to advise the Secretary of State on all aspects of relations
between the two main traditions in Northern Ireland. The intention was
to ensure that community relations would not be compartmentalized into
a box but be considered as an integral part of the decision making process
within government. According to CCRU, this is achieved through challenging
and reviewing government policy and developing and supporting new ideas
at grass roots level through grant aid.

However, the creation of CRC led to CCRU handing over most of its grant
aiding role to that body. it is now primarily concerned with formulating
policy guidelines and monitoring policy performance.[14]
The two most important policy guidelines have been Targeting Social Need
(TSN) and Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT). Both PAFT and TSN
are understood as 'equity' measures, distinct from 'community relations'.
This tends to reinforce the implicit assumption that equity is applicable
to government structures but that community relations is only applicable
to community groups. Once CCRU handed over its grand aiding role to CRC,
it therefore divested itself of its strategic community relations responsibilities
within government.

It might be argued that equity and community relations are essentially
the same thing, only clothed in terms which are digestible by a particular
sector. However, it is our contention that although narrowing socio/economic
differentials cannot be separated from the state of relationships between
the two major communities, they remain two distinct concepts. The export
of primary responsibility for community relations to vulnerable community
groups can be seen as government abrogating on its own responsibilities
both as a major employer and as a major deliverer of public services.

The other main area of activity in the late 1980s by government was
the implementation of educational reforms. The government thus began 100%
financial supporting of Catholic schools, supporting the emergence of an
integrated school sector; aiding Irish language schools. introduction of
a compulsory core curriculum obliging all schools to teach a range of subjects
which were seen as improving the chances of school leavers (especially
Catholic) to obtain a job. Also included within the core curriculum were
two cross-curricular community relations programmes.. Education for Mutual
Understanding (EMU) and Cultural Heritage.[15] A number of indicators
have shown that EMU was imposed on overworked teachers with little training
and preparation and the programme itself is conceptually unclear, with
little difference between EMU and Cultural Heritage." Another initiative
for schools and the youth sector, developed at around the same time, was
the Cross Community Contact Scheme (CCCS) in which participation was purely
on a voluntary basis. Schools are encouraged to come together for various
activities as a practical way of developing EMU. However recent research
has shown that although a 45% of all schools are involved in CCCS (1994-5)
less than 20% of primary and less than 10% of secondary pupils were involved
in CCCS during 1994-5.[16]

For community relations to be effective, or for the different identity
groups to begin depending on each other socially, economically and politically
on a long term basis, requires overcoming generations of individual and
institutional mistrust, fear and discrimination. It requires a complete
change within organizations and groups that have structurally adapted to
living separately not interdependently. However, interdependence does not
mean assimilation.

Diversity

Equity and interdependence in Northern Ireland and some of the efforts
which have gone into developing just and fair relationships
has been briefly touched above. The third dimension is diversity. Every
society consists of a range of different identity groups based on gender,
religion, ethnic or racial background, class, sexual orientation, education,
with various degrees of permanency The challenge for liberal democracies,
founded on equal representation for all, is how to recognize these different
identity groups. Is a democracy failing its citizens if major institutions
do not take into account different identities? On the other hand, can public
institutions take into account different identity groups whilst at the
same time ensuring everyone receives equal levels of such 'primary goods'
as health care, education, religious freedom, right to vote, employment
opportunities. [17]

This is of course an old debate. Should all individuals be recognized
equally as members of the human race, or should they be recognized differently
in term of their membership to different identity groups? A third dimension
is whether people residing within a nation state be recognized in terms
of belonging to one identity group only. Charles Taylor in the Politics
of Recognition gives examples of the USA, Canada and France for each
of the three cases.

Case 1
In the United States which is a state of nationalities, no identity group
is officially privileged or differentiated from any others and, ideally,
all receive equal treatment and have equal rights.

Case 2
In Canada the historic survival of French speaking Quebec and the aboriginal
people meant that their distinctive cultures are privileged above all others
within their geographical areas. Yet Canada's constitution is based on
a set of individual rights guaranteeing equal treatment of citizens in
a number of respects.[18] The political demands of a collective
group such as Quebec puts in danger these two central aspects of Canada's
Charter. For example Quebec's language laws might be an infringement on
the individual rights of non francophone Canadians within Quebec. Secondly
the promotion of a particular identity group within Quebec could be discriminatory
against other identity groups such as immigrants and anglophone Canadians.[19]

Case 3
The third case would be reflected in such nation states as Norway and France,
whoact to produce men and women of a certain type.[20]These states are committed to ensuring that a certain language, culture,
tradition, history takes precedence over others. At the same time they
do not completely deny the rights of other identity groups to express their
own culture. There are obviously times of tension between the dominant
and minority cultures.

The crucial question in all three cases, is to what extent should different
identity groups be publicly recognized. Charles Taylor argues that there
is a growing connection between public recognition and identity In other
words, an individual belonging to a particular identity group needs to
be publicly recognized in order to justify who they are as a human being.
if they do not receive that public recognition, then there is the possibility
of real harm being done to that individual's self worth.

Within this perspective, misrecognition shows not.just a lack of
due respect. It can inflict a grievous wound, saddling its victims with
a crippling self hatred. Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe
people. It is a vital human need.[21]

Davin Bremner argues that the poverty of identity (forced migration,
lack of cultural expression) is on the same level as poverties of subsistence
(insufficient income, housing), of protection (health, violence),
of affection (authoritarianism, oppression, exploitative relations
with the environment), of participation (marginalisation and social
exclusion).[22] Perhaps more importantly, where there is a history
of hostility between groups, the forced exclusion of one group or the other
is likely to generate enormous political resentment.

This is particularly problematic when different groups have to live
together equitably This means that different identity groups can
only demand public recognition within certain reasonable boundaries prescribed
ultimately by the maintenance of just relationships between individuals
and groups. Until now, the boundaries of what was acceptable may have been
established by a balance of threat. The unstable nature of such balances
was illustrated in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and thereafter. The search
in Northern Ireland is therefore for the agreed boundaries which might
be separated from the balance of threat. In the absence of any general
agreement, each currently negotiates identity at each different level.

For example, in a predominantly Protestant factory, Protestant workers
might argue that they are suffering from the 'poverty of identity' both
in the workplace and within Northern Ireland, in the light of their perceptions
about the Anglo-lrish Agreement. They might insist their Protestant identity
be acknowledged by flying the Union Flag. However, this would have a detrimental
impact on working relationships between Catholics and Protestants on the
shop floor. A different experience is that of a youth club which allows
its members to wear Celtic and Rangers tops, arguing that the relationships
between Catholic and Protestant youth have become confident enough to allow
this expression of group identities.[23] Relationships at the
factory are not at that stage. Nor are people very certain regarding the
playing of both national anthems, or receiving heads of state from the
Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom.

The legitimacy of recognizing identity groups within many different
organizations and groups therefore depends on the levels of trust and confidence
between the groups.

Another problem arises in an organisation or group which is founded
on promoting a particular cultural identity. Can a Catholic complain about
the Union Flag flying outside an Orange Hall where they help out in the
Mothers and Toddlers group? Can a Protestant security guard complain about
a statue of the Virgin Mary in a Catholic school?[24]

Northern Ireland clearly splits into two competing identity groups whose
very existence has posed a threat to each other's survival. At the macro
level there has been some public recognition of both groups by the British
and Irish governments. Any constitutional settlement will conceivably recognize
these two identity groups in some power sharing agreement with links to
Britain and the Irish Republic. Among the crucial questions is whether
the 'new state' will be based on a democratic liberalism which remains
neutral on the 'specific ends of life' and is not publicly committed to
the survival of the two identity groups., or whether it will be organized
around the dominance of a single identity, whether in a United Ireland
or a United Kingdom. A third option, as suggested by Charles Taylor, is
a state which distinguishes between certain fundamental rights which equally
apply to all citizens and those rights which ensure equal cultural survival
of Catholics and Protestants identities. In this potential agreement, the
'good life', for the main traditions, is the securing of the two major
identity groups with the possible problem of other identity groups not
having the same privilege - e.g. the Chinese, Indian communities. However,
with such nation states as Norway and France, these minority/ethnic groups
will have the right to express their own cultures in civil life and in
the family.

At the personal or micro level, many individuals and small groups, over
the years, have effectively developed just relationships based on reciprocal
recognition of each other's identities. They have developed a form of interdependence
which has survived the many political upheavals in the province through
community development, religion, economic development, sports, and cultural
activities.

The big gap lies at the middle or meso level of Northern Irish society
The main decision makers, across all sectors, have not really begun grappling
with the implications of operating in a divided society How should institutions
reflect this reality in terms of their policies, structures and training
and the delivery of services? Should they be 'partial' in the argument
that Northern Ireland is a Protestant state for the majority Protestant
people? Should they be 'neutral', although this state of 'neutrality' will
often take direction from whoever is in charge? Should they be 'diverse'
in valuing the fact that the central faultline in this society is reflected
in their own organisation?

Debates around 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' tend to originate
in the US, where there are increasing demands from the vast range of different
identity groups to be publicly recognized. The debates are however not
only taking place within academic, community and political levels but also
among many day to day decision makers. In an article on 'A New Paradigm
forManaging Diversity', David Thomas and Robin Ely argue that
there are three ways in which an organisation can manage diversity.

Discrimination - and - FairnessThe first is keeping to the legal requirements imposed by the state.
What Thomas and Ely term the 'Discrimination-and -Fairness Paradigm'. Decision
makers who approach 'diversity' in this manner usually focus on equal opportunity
and harassment policies, recruitment practice, fair treatment, compliance
with any relevant pieces of legislation.

Prejudice has kept members of certain demographic groups out of organizations
such as ours. As a matter of fairness and to comply with federal mandates,
we need to work toward restructuring the makeup of our organization to
let it more closely reflect that of society. We need managerial processes
that ensure that all our members are treated equally and with respect and
that some are not given unfair advantage over others.[25]

The effectiveness of such an approach is measured by numbers - both
in recruitment and retention rates. If there is a disparity in the numbers,
then action is taken to correct the situation. However, as Thomas and Ely
conclude, the numbers might be diversified but the organisation still works
on the basis that 'we are all the same, even if we are really all different'.
According to Thomas and Ely, this philosophy is so deeply ingrained that
an employee who believes that, for example, the company's marketing strategy
is not appropriate for all 'ethnic segments in the marketplace', might
be unwilling to point this out as they might feel that they will be contravening
the culture of assimilation within that organisation. if in addition this
employee cites their own personal experiences to back up their argument,
s/he might be in even greater derogation of the organisation's code of
blindness to cultural differences.[26] Transpose this approach
to Northern Ireland, and there would be many organisations where citing
personal experiences of the Catholic or Protestant traditions for professional
reasons would be frowned upon. Thomas and Ely argue that this paradigm
impairs the organisation's capacity to learn about and improve its
internal processes and overall effectiveness.

They cite another example of a US international consulting firm who
implemented an Equal Opportunities process to ensure that the numbers of
women and people of colour would reflect national statistics. It took twenty
years to complete the process and at the end the numbers looked good. However,
it was about that time, that the first serious problems emerged. This was
met with complete shock by the management team: after having finally reached
diversity, they were now having racial discrimination problems? An extensive
analysis of the problems was undertaken and it became clear that the issue
was not about discrimination although management had understood them as
such. The tensions were actually around different approaches to working
practice.

Surveys and interviews indicated that white project leaders welcomed
demographic diversity as a general sign of progress but that they also
thought the new employees were somehow changing the company, pulling it
away from its original culture and its mission.[27]

Criticisms included the complaint that African American and Hispanic
staff made problems too complex by linking issues the organization had
traditionally regarded as unrelated,[28] and that they were
introducing projects that were too 'culturally sensitive.' Women and people
of colour were also seen as subverting the company's proud reputation for
hard-core quantitative analysis; they were actually suggesting consulting
with groups in the community![29] For their part, women and
people of colour were complaining generally about not being taken seriously
The interesting conclusion was that because management had understood the
problems through the traditional 'discrimination-fairness' paradigm, they
were looking for cases of racial or gender discrimination, which in fact
were few and far between. The real crux of the matter was that there was
a serious clash of working practices which directly impacted on the core
values and motivation of the organisation itself. It is relatively easy
to address numbers and to discipline incidents of discrimination. What
is much harder is to address the organizational changes needed to incorporate
and value different identities as a positive contribution to corporate
effectiveness. Many organisations in Northern Ireland understand sectarianism
as acts of discrimination rather than the more subtle and more revolutionary
aspect of how organisations value different approaches to work and life.
Responding to discriminatory acts is relatively simple; changing organisational
values and culture requires whole sale change.

Access - and - Legitimacy
The second approach came later, during the 1980s and early 1990s. It signified
a move away from assimilating differences into a dominant culture to 'celebrating
differences'. Thomas and Ely call this approach the 'Access-and-Legitimacy
Paradigm' and define it as follows:

We are living in an increasingly multicultural country and new ethnic
groups are quickly gaining consumer power Our company needs a demographically
more diverse workforce to help us gain access to these differentiated segments.
We need employees with multilingual skills in order to understand and serve
our customers better and to gain legitirnacy with them. Diversity isn'tjust
fair; it makes business sense.[30]

It makes business sense to ensure that staff within an organisation
reflects different identity groups within the wider community as a guarantee
that all 'niche markets' are covered using 'specialist knowledge. 'This
approach acknowledges the worth which different identity groups can bring
to an organisation in terms of 'specialist knowledge and experience'. However,
it still marginalizes these different identity groups into pigeon holes,
without allowing them to contribute to the working practices of the organisation
as a whole. A firm hires a black person to access the untapped markets
in the townships, but that is the extent of their responsibilities. Thomas
& Ely illustrate this second paradigm with the experiences of a US
investment bank in the early 1980s which decided to expand into Europe.
At the start, it recruited American personnel to staff the European offices.
However, this proved to be disastrous as these people did not have local
contacts, were ignorant of local nonns and were generally unaware of the
local market situation. The firm therefore decided to hire Europeans who
had attended US business schools to staff their European offices. This
proved to be a great success and the company was flying. However, after
some years, there was a sense of growing disquiet by some managers in the
US. What would happen if the Spanish team all suddenly resigned? Would
there be anyone in US headquarters who could take over? Thomas & Ely
quote one of these managers:

We've never attempted to learn what these differences and cultural
competencies really are, and how they change the process of doing business.
What is the German team actually doing? We don't know. We know they're
good, but we don't know the subtleties qf how they do what they do. We
assumed - and I think correctly - that culture makes a difference, but
that's about as far as we went....... Our company's biggest failing is
that the department heads in London and the directors ef the various country
teams have never talked about these cultural identity issues openly. We
knew enough to use people's strengths, as it were, but we never seemed
to learn from them. (Authors' emphasis)[31]

The organization reacted to a problem and successfully solved it in
the short term. However, from the company's perspective, this approach
was leaving it very vulnerable in that its whole European market was dependent
on skills and knowledge which headquarters had no access to. From the European
staffs point of view, it could lead to feelings of marginalization and
insecurity in that in times of downsizing it is the 'specialist' departments
which go first - those on the sidelines.

Learning - Effectiveness

The final paradigm is obviously the one Thomas & Ely promote - 'The
Learning - Effectiveness Paradigm'- which is about 'connecting diversity
to work perspectives' and which also returns to our theme in the Introduction
to this report, of 'relinking life and work'. According to these two authors,
introducing diversity is only beneficial to an organisation if it acknowledges
the benefits different identity groups can bring to organisational practice
as a whole. This in turn requires a fundamental shift in the attitudes
and behaviour of the organisation's leadership. The third approach affirms
equality of opportunity for all. celebrates diversity., but it also learns
and grows from these differences. An interesting case study is that of
a Chinese woman working as a chemist in a food company. A problem arose
regarding the manufacturing of a new soup flavour. Various scientific initiatives
were undertaken to resolve the problem. Finally, as the chemist is quoted
by Thomas & Ely, [I set] aside my chemistry and [drew] on my understanding
of Chinese Cooking.[32] However, she did not explain to
her white male colleagues from where she derived her inspiration. Not only
would she have had to cross the 'cultural blind' tradition within the organisation,
but also the gender barrier. Too many barriers for her career prospects.
Arguably, the organisation would have gained a lot from creating an internal
culture of beaming where identity groups would feel comfortable using all
their expertise, from whichever sources. it had in fact spent a lot of
money training all its staff on valuing each other's contributions etc.,
however, the culture of avoidance regarding difference was too strong.

We have spent some time on Thomas & Ely's diversity framework, because
it is very relevant for many organisations and groups in Northern Ireland
who are themselves struggling with the various stages of diversity - some
of whom are detailed in Chapters 4 and 5. Many large organisations have
had to grapple with Fair Employment legislation and pressures from the
Fair Employment Commission. They have had to implement equal opportunities
policies and procedures and develop positive action strategies aiming towards
fair participation between Protestants and Catholics in the workforce.
In some cases, those coming in have had to assimilate themselves into the
dominant culture of the organisation. In other situations, those coming
in have been welcomed as a means of opening up markets, obtaining funding,
gaining national and international approval. There are very few organisations
or groups that have reached Thomas & Ely's 'learning and effectiveness
paradigm'. On the other hand, there is a quiet questioning beginning about
'where do we go from here' from organisations and groups that have implemented
effective equal opportunities structures and whose goals of fair participation
are being met. What is the next stage? What new initiatives could be developed?
These questions have to be based firstly on the goals and the underlying
values of the organisation, and secondly, on the state of internal relationships
between members and between the organisation and the wider community.

For example, a community group might wish to remove the ragged Tricolour
from the lamp post outside its centre. The groups underlying values are
about encouraging cross-community relationships and its goals are about
increasing the use of its services. The group has very clear equal opportunity
guidelines, and recruitment and selection procedures for both volunteers
and staff. Relationships within the group are good but polite. relationships
between the group and the wider community are good but careful. The goals,
the underlying values the policies and procedures all point towards something
being done about the Tricolour. However, for a number of reasons, the various
relationships are not ready for such an action. it would probably make
the group more 'effective' if the Tricolour were removed in that it might
encourage more Protestants to use a service not provided elsewhere. However,
the group is not prepared to do this because of the costs involved resulting
directly from the state of existing relationships.[33]

This is something which is missing from Thomas & Ely's framework
in that they do not talk about timing and how this is so dependent on the
levels of existing trust between the stakeholders involved. They do not
talk about when it is best not to move to the third paradigm. It
is obviously a 'chicken and egg' situation in that trust will only develop
once different identity groups feel acknowledged and valued; however, for
that process to begin, a certain amount of trust needs to have been built
up. It is the time old challenge for leaders.. to move from within the
group, rather than from the outside. However, the crucial aspect of timing
does not detract from the value of an organisation/group investing in the
real benefits of diversity rather than assimilating or sidelining difference.
In Northern Ireland this means organisations working towards explicitly
acknowledging that they operating in a 'special-zone', a 'borderland region'
where diversity is inextricably linked to the political future of Northern
Ireland.

Final Remarks

Political and social division dominates the public landscape in Northern
Ireland. In the absence of any broadly acceptable answer, this division
acts as a potential exploding bomb underneath Northern Irish social structure.
The search for unifiers or 'transcenders' therefore assumes an importance
in all social policy. Having rejected one-community solutions in 1969,
1972, 1974 and 1975, the British government has been committed to seeking
some form of inter-community compromise.

In order for 'community relations' to have any substantive meaning,
it must be constructively linked with policies for equity and diversity
Likewise if equity and diversity are to contribute to stability rather
than heightened competition, they need to be brought together with an acknowledgement
of interdependence between groups in Northern Ireland. The practical task
is to translate these broad principles into workable policies, structures
and procedures with due regard for the many different contexts and learning
cultures. It is certainly no longer possible to limit community relations
to the informal and community groups without reference to the broader structure
of public and private management.

FARREN, S., FINN, P, KIRK, T., HUGHES, J., (1992), Students Together
and Students Apart - A Study of Student-Teachers' Attitudes in Northern
Ireland, University of Ulster, Coleraine

FISHER, C., ed. (1995), Policing in aNew Society, Report
of a conference at the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education
- 5 November 1994, Centre for Research and Documentation, Belfast Community
Forum on Policing

FITZDUFF, M. (1989) A Typology of Community Relations Work and Contextual
Necessities, Belfast: Pamphlet No.l, Northern Ireland Community Relations
Council

FORD, V, "Partnership is the secret of progress", in People
Management, 8 February 1996, pp.34-36

FORUM FOR PEACE AND RECONCILIATION, (1995), The Social and Economic
Consequences of Peace and Economic Reconstruction - Consultancy Studies,
Number One, Dublin Castle

GUTTMAN, A., in (1992), Multiculturalism and the "Politics of
Recognition" - An Essay

HADDEN, T., (1997), Possible Structures for the Development and Implementationof Policy Appraisal on Separation and Sharing (PASS), discussion
paper submitted to the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council

HAMILTON, A., McCartney, C., Anderson, T, Finn, A., (1990), Violence
and Communities - The Impact of Political Violence in Northern Ireland
on Intra-Community, Inter-Community and Community-State Relationships,
University of Ulster

KNOX, C. and FORBES, K., (1994), Local Government in Northern Ireland:
A Descriptive Model, Ulster Papers in Public Policy and Management,
No 38, University of Ulster

KNOX,C.,(1995), Alienation: An emerging Protestant phenomenon in
Northern Ireland, Ulster Papers in Public Policy and Management No
53, University of Ulster

KNOX, C., and HUGHES, J., (1996), An Evolving Role For Community
Relations Officers: A Preliminary Study, University of Ulster

KNOX, C., and HUGHES, J., BIRRELL, D., McCREADY, S., (1994), Community
Relations and Local Government, Centre for the Study of Conflict, Coleraine

KOLB, D., LUBLIN,S., SPOTH, J., Baker, T., "Strategic management
development using experimental learning theory to assess and develop managerial
competencies", in Managing Learning, edited by Mabey, C., and
Iles, P, New York in association with the Open University

McMASTER, J., (1994), Churches Working Together - A Practical Guide
for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Community Relations Council

McVEIGH, R., "Cherishing the Children of the Nation Unequally:
Sectarianism in Ireland", (1995), in Irish Society: sociological
perspectives, ed. Clancy P et al, Dublin, Institute of Public Administration
in association with the Sociological Society of Ireland

THE FAITH AND POLITICS GROUP, (1997), Doing Unto Others - Parity
of esteem in a contested space, The Faith and Politics Group, Ireland

THE FOUNDATION FOR A CIVIL SOCIETY, THE PROJECT ON JUSTICE IN TIMES
OF TRANSITION, UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER, INCORE, (1995), Report of The Belfast
Conference on Reconciliation and Community: The Future of Peace in Northern
Ireland

WILLIAMSON, A. (ed.), ( 1995) Beyond Violence - The Role of Voluntary
and Community Action in Building a Sustainable Peace in Northern Ireland,
Northern Ireland Community Relations Council and Centre for Voluntary Action
Studies, University of Ulster

WRENCH, J., (1996), Preventing Racismat the Workplace - A
report on 16 European Countries, Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations
- University of Warwick, Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies,
Dublin, European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions

WRENCH, J., TAYLOR, P, (1994). A Research Manual on the Evaluation
of Anti-Discrimination Training Activities, International Labour Office,
Geneva